<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by catfood:
I think a point a lot of people miss is the emissions cost of creating a vehicle. The factories that produce the steel and aluminium are churning out all sorts of stuff. So it's not just the running emisions that need to be looked at.If a car is scrapped after a few years because it no longer meets the running emissions regulations what is the emmisions cost of building it's replacement. The same can be said of electric cars. They are not emission free, we burn fossil fuels or use nuclear powerplants to generate the electricity to charge them.
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: catfood ]<hr></blockquote>
Be for warned - long post!
Steve has a point. However this should be expounded on. What comes out of the tail pipes of our cars is indeed only part of the bigger picture. The process to make these vehicles in another aspect. The use of recyclable material either in the actual manufacturing process, or material that can be recycled after it a car is scrapped is definitely a positive thing to look at. But again this is only a part of the problem. I’m not so sure that the cost of replacing a car that is forced off the road or scrapped because it fails emissions standards is really a major point. As far more cars are being put on the road year after year to meet the demands of an ever growing population, than are actually being taken off the road due to natural attrition.
There are other aspects of the issues that seem to be over looked that contribute just as severely. The biggest IMHO is that growing pollution I mentioned above. The following is an excerpt of an email discussion I had with another concerned citizen of our planet and LBC lover.
Read on at your own risk!
Forwarded edited dicussion:
“As to the " some facts that cannot be disputed" you listed - I only had an issue with one.
>2) People consume/pollute, animals do not, plants do not
False - Yes, people do consume and pollute, but the part of the statement regarding Animals is wrong. Many studies have proven that cows "alone" account for something like 10% of the 550 million metric tons of methane gas emissions. FYI Methane is one of the major contributors to global warming.
The rest of your facts - I more or less agree with. I was happy to see that you didn't have any issue with my claim that My 78B (or anybody's for that matter) could hope to pass the stiff emissions tests set for our newer autos.
As for the rest of your comments concerning the planet - I'll admit that I don't have the answers. But I'd like to pass along some information to you as you seem genuinely concerned about our planet future. I've seen several studies on the aforementioned Methane gas affect on global warming that you might be interested in knowing. Here are some basics.
The four largest sources methane gas:
1) Landfills.
2) Enteric Fermentation (i.e. animal emissions)
3) Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems
4) Coal mining.
While these are the big four largest sources of methane gas in the world. Studies show that Agriculture accounted for 28 percent of U.S. methane emissions in 1999. In addition to the Enteric Fermentation (not just cows) Agriculture also consists of Manure Management, Rice Cultivation and Agricultural Residue Burning to list but a few. With that said - in the grand scheme of things, Mobile combustion (Interstate trucking, Trains, Autos as well as encompassing all methods of air travel) accounts for less half the methane releases that our Wastewater Treatment plants produce.
In support of your comments concerning over population and scant resources - the top source of methane gas is our over flown landfills. As the population increases this will only get worse. As will the demand for food and other natural resources generated through Agriculture. So don't look for any of these to diminish any time soon if population growth continues on it's current path.
Regarding CO2 emissions. The information I found would also support some aspects of your comments. With Fossil Fuel Combustion accounting for something like 95% of CO2 emissions thanks to the population growth. However the following quote from the EPA's web page - attributes less than 31% of those emissions to the Transportation End-Use Sector (Folks like you & I), with less than 2/3's of that resulted from gasoline consumption in motor vehicles.
"Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities - excluding international bunker fuels - accounted for 31 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 1999. Virtually all of the energy consumed in this end-use sector came from petroleum products. Just under two thirds of the emissions resulted from gasoline consumption in motor vehicles. The remaining emissions came from other transportation activities, including the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft."
As for N2O: (This is the worst by the way) In 1999, agricultural soil management accounted 69% of the U.S. N2O emissions. Likewise N2O emissions from managed manure systems in 1999 for 4%. All the while in that same year - N2O emissions from mobile combustion totaled 15% of U.S. N2O emissions.
For more information:
https://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national/ghgintro.html
Granted we can and should do better for our children’s sake. But knowing what I know - I still don't think that attacking our classic autos is the answer to our world's woes. I feel that we have much bigger fish to fry.
Hi Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
